Maybe you shouldn’t venture outside of the curated Internet then. If you don’t want to read something, you’ll just have to stick to places like Facebook that delete it to protect your eyes from such dangerous words and ideas.

Do you avoid spoilers? I do, and that doesn't mean I'm "afraid of ideas". Actively avoiding certain information doesn't require a curated internet - it helps when other people respect that (spoiler tags/warnings and such).

I expect most people who hang out on HN would understand that there are no good outcomes when PII is in the wrong hands - that's not even a controversial idea.

Interesting point, but I’m not sure the analogy holds up under scrutiny. You don’t want spoilers because they contain information that you do ultimately want to know.

A better analogy might be NSFL videos (people dying, mutilation etc.) I would be upset to find such a video auto playing in my feed. But I also think it’s a whole different level of offense compared to words on a page. And I know not to visit certain pages on 4chan, for example, if I want to avoid seeing such content. So do I benefit from using moderated platforms like Reddit instead? I would say yes. But then I would also suggest you need to apply the same logic to words on a page; if you don’t want to see them, stick to platforms that censor them for you.

Regarding PII, I’m not sure how you can argue that the name of a public figure is PII. The person in question is a “whistleblower” in some sense, but it’s very debatable whether he actually has any legal protections regarding others publicizing his name. As far as I know, he is not protected by WITSEC or any official, legal whistleblower statute or act. All censorship or omission of his name has been voluntary on the part of media organizations and social media platforms.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a single point that disproved the prior (my motivation is fear of ideas) as well as the solution (curated internet).

I vehemently disagree with the assumption that the act of whistleblowing transforms one into public figure.

edit: A better analogy would be a recipe for crack cocaine. I have 0 use for that knowledge, and I definitely won't spread it because at best, my audience will have no use for it either, or at worst, they'll act on it and I'll likely find their actions disagreeable. If I find a link that says "How to make crack in 10 steps", I won't click it. I won't appreciate it if someone randomly injects crack-cooking instructions in a discussion about baking soda or sodium perchlorate or whatever might be one of the ingredients.

It doesn't matter that you didn't want to know -- all the people whose knowing of this matters... know, they all know. If you wanted the whistleblower to avoid reprisals by having his identity kept secret, it's too late.

I clearly stated my 2 concerns. The chilling-effect (by sending a message to would-be whistleblowers that they'd be tarred and feathered) as well as a "Lone-wolf" taking matters into their own hands, as it were.

I have no control what you (or others) propagate, as is your right - but I will not be part of it. I understand why Facebook, Wikipedia and others won't either (they too, have 1A rights).

Nonsense. Being a whistleblower requires running some risks. It's a necessity. You can't really blow the whistle on crimes etc. without ever going public -- at some point there might be a trial and you'd have to testify, else it's not a proper trial.

And again, horse, barn, door. It's gone. It ain't coming back.

Anyone who wanted to harm Eric Ciaramella could find that his name is Eric Ciaramella with a minute of research. The notion that scrubbing the name Eric Ciaramella from the internet will protect Eric Ciaramella is laughable. The only thing censoring information about Eric Ciaramella does is inhibit debate.